http://www.businessinsider.com/paul-krugman-shifts-chart-to-show-non-existant-correlation-2015-5
No surprise here. This is the only way liberalism can live.
No surprise here. This is the only way liberalism can live.
BUSTED: Paul Krugman removed 20 years of data from a chart to show a correlation that wasn't really
- Thread starter icu81222
- Start date
Scoreboard bishes, who won the popular vote in 5 of the last 6 presidential elections?
^ Yet we all wonder why the country is why it is today....About that strong foriegn policy too....
From the posted article-
Update – Some people have noted that Paul Krugman says he specifically mentioned the era when monetary policy wasn’t used for averting bubbles. Which is true.
Update – Some people have noted that Paul Krugman says he specifically mentioned the era when monetary policy wasn’t used for averting bubbles. Which is true.
So you subscribe to the Reid theory that it does matter how much you lie as long as you win? As has been said liberalism does not work in the real world, it takes a heavy dose of lying.
Not the party who just lost the senate and fell further behind in the house would be my guess am I right?
I subscribe to being an open minded thinker and realize that there are many complex subjects with two sides to every argument. Only buffoons subscribe to blanket statements like "liberalism is based on lies". The bigger buffoon believes liberalism is getting owned and then LOL LOL LOL, but most reasonable people would agree that poster isn't to be taken seriously anyway.
Um, yes he was busted manipulating data for an agenda . From the article:
"See what was done there? The period in the early 1960's was removed, and so was the period from 2000 on. In other words, out of a 55-year time period, Dr. Krugman decided to remove 20 years' worth of data. For those keeping track, that's removing almost 40% of an entire data set just because the data didn't fit the narrative. And when you add those years back you get a result that shows a very weak correlation:
Some people have noted that Paul Krugman says he specifically mentioned the era when monetary policy wasn’t used for averting bubbles. Which is true. But let’s be honest – Paul Krugman has always stated that traditional monetary policy loses its effectiveness in a liquidity trap. We weren’t in a liquidity trap prior to 2008 so there’s no reason for him to remove that data.
Further, if you review the original data he presented there really isn’t a relationship at all. In fact, it’s even weaker than the entire data set.
Unfortunately, instead of responding thoroughly to a well thought out critique, Dr. Krugman decided to offer up a lazy chart blog that didn’t prove his point in the first place."
Well then why stop at the 60's? Why didn't the article call him out to not going all the way back to the 1880's?
I was ignoring this thread because, well, consider the source.
But I decided to take a look. The author of the article and the OP clearly haven't a clue about statistics.
OF COURSE there's a correlation between rates and housing starts. Just think about it. And then look at K's chart and the article's author's "corrected" chart. They both clearly show that correlation. But the article's author isn't interested in statistics. He's interested in attacking K. And he knows he has a stupid audience.
What is that correlation? Just look at the charts and pay attention. It isn't linear. So simple regression on the scatter-plots in the article won't show it. I isn't hard and it isn't a trick question. Just look and think.
But I decided to take a look. The author of the article and the OP clearly haven't a clue about statistics.
OF COURSE there's a correlation between rates and housing starts. Just think about it. And then look at K's chart and the article's author's "corrected" chart. They both clearly show that correlation. But the article's author isn't interested in statistics. He's interested in attacking K. And he knows he has a stupid audience.
What is that correlation? Just look at the charts and pay attention. It isn't linear. So simple regression on the scatter-plots in the article won't show it. I isn't hard and it isn't a trick question. Just look and think.
